Funding Our Troops

End the war. Fund the troops. You can sum up the argument between President Bush and the Democratic majorities in Congress in just six words. Both the House and the Senate have now passed supplemental appropriations that in different ways call for a beginning of an end to our military involvement in Iraq.

President Bush threatens to veto them and any supplemental that places limits on military operations. It's clear that the Democrats don't have the votes to override a veto, or anything close. The Senate version, passed 51 to 47, sets a goal of withdrawing most of the troops from Iraq by next March. The House version, passed 218 to 212, sets a date by which all troops must be gone: September 2008.

The House and Senate must reconcile the two versions, and then the leadership must get the common version through both houses. That may not be easy.

Senator Nelson of Nebraska says he's reluctant to vote for a version with a timetable. Speaker Pelosi has reportedly conceded that the conference committee will "take the Senate language on goals."

But that will be a hard sell in the House. The 71-member Progressive Caucus, headed by Lynne Woolsey and Barbara Lee, who cast the sole vote against military action in Afghanistan, in February called for withdrawal in six months. Ms. Pelosi and the majority leader twisted arms and ladled out enough pork to get most of its members in line in March on a bill with a deadline. Now, they'll have to work to get them to vote for a bill without one.

The alternative is to get Republican votes. But only two of them were for the March bill, and few are likely to support anything but a "clean bill," with no deadlines, goals, or benchmarks.

Such a measure would enrage many Democrats. CodePink and other anti-war organizations have already been staging demonstrations. They'd get really angry if a Democratic House passes a "clean bill."

The Democrats will face the same problem when Mr. Bush vetoes their bill. They would like to end the war, but they dare not end funding to the troops. They can hope that the sympathetic mainstream press will put the blame on Mr. Bush. But they can't help remembering that the last time an opposition Congress refused to meet a president's demand to fund the government it was the speaker — Newt Gingrich — not President Clinton who plummeted in the polls.

Conceding this point earlier this month was Senate Armed Services chairman, Carl Levin, as well as one of the most visible Democratic presidential candidates, Barack Obama. Mr. Levin has called for a bill setting political goals for the Iraqi government.

Whether Mr. Bush and congressional Republicans would accept that is unclear. It could be argued that it would enable Mr. Bush to play the good cop with the Iraqis, with the Democratic Congress as the bad cop. Or it could be portrayed as micromanaging by 535 commanders in chief.

We witness here a division in the Democratic Party — its politicians and its voters — that we have seen ever since military action started to be considered in 2002. Then, most House Democrats voted against the Iraq war resolution, most Senate Democrats for it. The lineup today is not necessarily the same: Mr. Levin, who voted against the war resolution, insists the troops must be funded; the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, who voted for the war resolution, said last November that of course the troops will be funded, and now says he's for Senator Feingold's March 2008 deadline.

What's curious is that congressional Democrats don't seem much interested in what's actually happening in Iraq. The commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus, returns to Washington this week, but last week Ms. Pelosi's office said "scheduling conflicts" prevented him from briefing House members. Two days later, the members-only meeting was scheduled, but the episode brings to mind the fact that Ms. Pelosi and other top House Democrats skipped a Pentagon videoconference with Mr. Petraeus on March 8.

How long this fight will go on is unclear. Some Democrats predict that it will continue for months. But their dilemma remains the same. They want to be seen as acting to end the war. But they dare not be seen as not funding the troops.